Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:55:36 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr>, "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Using a larger block size on large filesystems Message-ID: <200112082055.fB8Ktaf18457@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200112082050.fB8Ko1T01347@mass.dis.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:PERSONALLY, I disagree. 1.5GB is too small these days; 2GB is a better
:choice. 8)
:
:Then again, I work for a company that puts everything in /System/Library,
:so I guess I should be quiet now. 8)
My current patch set uses a 3G target. 2G is reasonable, but it
cuts it fairly close if you do not have a separate /usr/obj and
maintain builds for both -current and -stable (eats +1G!).
Anything smaller then 2G is definitely too small.
Maybe I should adjust the code so if the hard drive has a huge amount
of space and all targets are met, it will further increase the size
of certain partitions (/var, /var/tmp, /usr) to a new 'power' target.
(we'll give /home a power target too so it doesn't get left out in the
cold). However, I think I'll let the current patch set go through a
commit round before I further complexify it. (I also need to add a
/tmp softlink capability in a future commit round).
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200112082055.fB8Ktaf18457>